Crash victim may have to move into old people's home (From Bournemouth Echo)

bit much when this country houses all and sundry from other countries and gives benefits to them so easily

I'm sure someone can pull some strings here, they are clearly in need of some special help from somewhere

If the accident was not his fault, why is he not claiming on the insurance. In most cases of this kind a substainial lump sump sum is paid and usually a yearly allowance. On the housing front sadly even with the DDA in force the percentage of housing for disabled people against able bodied persons in this area is very low. As in most cases if you do not accept an offer you go to the back of the queue or in my case accept an offer only to find out later the property is a load of rubbish!

"When police confirmed two paedophiles were living there, we couldn’t take any chances with our children’s safety". I think these are beyond personal reasons, What would most of the population do in these circumstances, accept the offer? I don't think so.

It appears that East Dorset will not pull out further stops to help this guy and his family, but will support the costs of employing wardens to look after sea horses.

Sadly you will probably find that this poor man was hit by either, an unisured driver, drink, driver or such like and there was probably no insurance to claim against for compensation. It is tragic that we seem to be able to provide for people who have never paid in to our system and yet when you seemingly have an honest working family man involved in a life changing accident he is failed by the system he has probably paid in to most of his adult working life!

I know my comments are not going to be popular but I would like to comment. If they have been offered suitable wheelchair accessible accommodation they should take it. Paedophiles are everywhere, I myself have one nearby and have a small child also. Whilst it is indeed a tragedy what happened to this young man, that does not entitle the family to pick and choose where they live if suitable accommodation has been offered.

The House next door to me is perfect for his needs and that of his family but is currently being taken up by a single mother and her ONE child. It has three bedrooms and is wheelchair friendly. Again it just shows that the ones that need the housing cant get it.

Merrin wrote:
The House next door to me is perfect for his needs and that of his family but is currently being taken up by a single mother and her ONE child. It has three bedrooms and is wheelchair friendly. Again it just shows that the ones that need the housing cant get it.

Thats nothing beat this one,there is a house in my road,which is a 4 bedroom with a dining room,local authority property,disabled adaptations allready in place,and there is ONE person living it.

klg71 wrote:
I know my comments are not going to be popular but I would like to comment. If they have been offered suitable wheelchair accessible accommodation they should take it. Paedophiles are everywhere, I myself have one nearby and have a small child also. Whilst it is indeed a tragedy what happened to this young man, that does not entitle the family to pick and choose where they live if suitable accommodation has been offered.

I actually agree. :/ I really feel for them, such unfortunate circumstances, but where housing is a need, the saying beggars can't be choosers fits the bill. I also live in an area I can't stand. There is no respect and pride. I have special needs children, and am not here by choice I can assure you! It's a real shame, but that's life. :/

Makes you wonder how all these Councils are coping with the lads, and lasses, coming back from war zones minus limbs etc. If this is any indication of the treatment disabled can expect, they might have been better off dying on the battlefield then come home wounded to this "fair and caring" land. Funny how other people can turn down housing a couple of times, yet disabled are expected to get what they are given.
As for large houses where one, or two people live in, the Council can get the house back if it is to large for the tenants needs. They don't bother though, to much time and effort involved. Lot easier to chase the money making Council scams.

Out of interest, how do you know that a pedophile is living in your area?

I also agree with klg 71 and probably won't be very popular either.
Paedaphiles are most likely in all areas. Just because we don't always know about them might just be because they've not yet been caught. It doesn't matter where you live, if parents are responsible and aware of where their children are and what they are doing and with whom they are doing it, it helps to keep them a litle safer. I also understood that most people who abuse children are usually the people closest to us, how does knowing there is a paedaphile in your area help with this?

WillBrown...........
The report said the Police told them.............

Why would police tell them that a pedo was in the area, unless they legally have to?
I will email them and ask.

My thoughts and well wishes go out to Sam and him family.

Wimwam wrote:
WillBrown........... The report said the Police told them.............

Never heard of that before: Megan's law's not legal this side of the pond, so it would not only be a breach of the Data Protection Act, but also the Human Rights one as well if they were told.

rainbowkisses wrote:
Makes you wonder how all these Councils are coping with the lads, and lasses, coming back from war zones minus limbs etc. If this is any indication of the treatment disabled can expect, they might have been better off dying on the battlefield then come home wounded to this "fair and caring" land. Funny how other people can turn down housing a couple of times, yet disabled are expected to get what they are given.
As for large houses where one, or two people live in, the Council can get the house back if it is to large for the tenants needs. They don't bother though, to much time and effort involved. Lot easier to chase the money making Council scams.

From personal experience, I can tell you injured and limbless ex service men and women do NOT get special treatment when it comes to wheelchair friendly or special needs housing.

If they are not already a council tenant, they have to go to the back of the queue like everyone else.

My friend's husband lost both his legs below the knee in Afghanistan and was told they would have to wait up to NINE years to get a council house of ANY sort!!!

As to the two posts above - it is now the case that "Sarah's Law" (similar to Megan's Law) is in place and ANYONE can apply for information to the Police if they think there is a Paedophile living in their area.

All you have to do is complete a form and pay the fee - around £40 I think and they have to provide you with the result within a set period of time.

I would propose that he hire a couple of guys from a security firm to 'visit' the known pedophiles, and 'consult' with them that nothing will happen if he were to move in.
If, in this course of this discussion, the security operatives have cause to 'defend themselves' from an unprovoked attack, then so be it.

rainbowkisses wrote:
Makes you wonder how all these Councils are coping with the lads, and lasses, coming back from war zones minus limbs etc. If this is any indication of the treatment disabled can expect, they might have been better off dying on the battlefield then come home wounded to this "fair and caring" land. Funny how other people can turn down housing a couple of times, yet disabled are expected to get what they are given. As for large houses where one, or two people live in, the Council can get the house back if it is to large for the tenants needs. They don't bother though, to much time and effort involved. Lot easier to chase the money making Council scams.

Everyone has to get what they are given to an extent. You are entitled to turn down properties, but if you do, you move back down the list no matter who you are, and I think that is right. Some people are waiting several years in b&bs and halfway houses and small rooms paying extortionate rent if they are working before being offered housing. Disabled people are priority and they don't wait anywhere near as long as other people. It's not the councils fault a vacant home was offered then refused, and not because the house itself wasn't suitable, but because they found out paedophiles lived in the area.
.
You say it's alright for other people to turn down housing, but not these people? They ARE allowed to turn down housing, as they have done. Now they will have to wait until another house becomes available again, and hope that house isn't close to where peadophiles live. They will still have priority over other families because of the disability, but does that give the person more rights over everyone else to CHOOSE exactly where they live? Someone has pointed out, paedophiles are in every community, and another family will now be moving into that house. Does having a disability make their children more at risk from paedophiles than anyone elses children? That's the only reason they turned down the property. The house was suitable, the area wasn't. I do have sympathy for their situation, but I would have more sympathy if they weren't already offered housing, or the council refused to help with adaptions, but this is not the case.

It's interesting to note that since reading this story but not having time to comment, many have written along the lines of what I was thinking: This couple, by already turning down 'suitable' accommodation, have not made the situation any easier for themselves. Accepting such accommodation and then going all out to negotiate a move with the housing association might have been a better option. Being an incumbent tenant would probably put them in a stronger position. Perhaps it's not too late? I do wish them all the best.

poolebabe wrote:

rainbowkisses wrote:
Makes you wonder how all these Councils are coping with the lads, and lasses, coming back from war zones minus limbs etc. If this is any indication of the treatment disabled can expect, they might have been better off dying on the battlefield then come home wounded to this "fair and caring" land. Funny how other people can turn down housing a couple of times, yet disabled are expected to get what they are given. As for large houses where one, or two people live in, the Council can get the house back if it is to large for the tenants needs. They don't bother though, to much time and effort involved. Lot easier to chase the money making Council scams.

Everyone has to get what they are given to an extent. You are entitled to turn down properties, but if you do, you move back down the list no matter who you are, and I think that is right. Some people are waiting several years in b&bs and halfway houses and small rooms paying extortionate rent if they are working before being offered housing. Disabled people are priority and they don't wait anywhere near as long as other people. It's not the councils fault a vacant home was offered then refused, and not because the house itself wasn't suitable, but because they found out paedophiles lived in the area.
.
You say it's alright for other people to turn down housing, but not these people? They ARE allowed to turn down housing, as they have done. Now they will have to wait until another house becomes available again, and hope that house isn't close to where peadophiles live. They will still have priority over other families because of the disability, but does that give the person more rights over everyone else to CHOOSE exactly where they live? Someone has pointed out, paedophiles are in every community, and another family will now be moving into that house. Does having a disability make their children more at risk from paedophiles than anyone elses children? That's the only reason they turned down the property. The house was suitable, the area wasn't. I do have sympathy for their situation, but I would have more sympathy if they weren't already offered housing, or the council refused to help with adaptions, but this is not the case.

I totally agree with PooleBabe's comments.
I also couldn't help but notice when this featured on the front page of the Daily Echo, it included a clear photograph of their child?
I may be stating the obvious, but if you were that scared about paedophiles, would you have your child's photo in a newspaper?
It's not the paedophiles the police know of we need to worry about...its the increasingly devious ones who they don't know about who could be living next door...
I do really feel for this family, and I hope they find suitable accommodation soon xx